Forum Forexroasted

the tax report alone saved me like 15 hours last year vs rebuilding it from ic markets exports. underrated feature nobody talks about

contradicting indicators causing freeze is the real tell. that means youre using them to confirm each other, which is backwards. they should each cover a different dimension, not vote on the same thing. when they overlap they just manufacture analysis paralysis.

the retest entry is the classic fakeout filter and the trade-off is exactly as described, you sacrifice the breakouts that run without looking back to gain a much better hit rate on the ones you do take. other filters that help, requiring the breakout candle to close beyond the level rather than just wick through it, and checking that the break aligns with the higher-timeframe direction. breaks against the bigger trend fail far more often. context plus a close plus a retest stacks the odds.

both of the above. the costs make it a negative sum game before you even click, and leverage speeds up the inevitable for the undisciplined. the 10% who win mostly just have tiny edge + ruthless risk control. boring but true

if youre dollar averaging both, log 100 trades of each side by side on a small size. its the only honest comparison. tickmill won for me on EU session, oanda won on asian (lower commissions on micro lots help there).

formula: lots = risk$ / (stop_pips x pip_value_per_lot). on eurusd 1 standard lot = ~10/pip. so 10 risk / (20 pips x 10) = 0.05 lots. thats it. for other pairs the pip value changes so use a calculator or your platform shows it

the 'silver bullet' is one of ICT's specific trading concepts: trade during specific 1-hour windows aligned with kill zones (10-11AM NY time being the famous one), looking for specific entry patterns within liquidity context.

ive watched hours of free videos on it but the execution rules feel slippery: "wait for liquidity grab, enter on FVG retest aligned with daily bias". in practice this is highly discretionary.

for those who actually trade silver bullet style: what's your win rate and what made it click for you?

imposing structure on an unstructured job is the whole battle. the market is open more hours than any human should engage with, and the always-on possibility is exhausting even when youre not trading. defined hours, defined session, and genuinely walking away after are what make it sustainable for years rather than a frantic sprint to burnout. treat it like a job with a clock, not a casino thats always open.

the mismatch trap is real and common. people pass with ultra-cautious scalping then switch to aggressive swing trading when funded and breach within a week, because they never validated the real strategy against the rules. if your actual approach cant pass the evaluation even at reduced size, thats vital information, it means your approach and the firms rules are incompatible, and youd rather learn that in evaluation than after funding.

portable mode plus a backup folder is the real answer. also worth running your live EA on a dedicated terminal install that you never touch for browsing the market or testing, so theres less reason for it to update at an inconvenient time.

on a funded account, do you pull profits at every eligible payout, or let the balance build to trade bigger and withdraw larger chunks less often? compounding sounds appealing but it also means more of my earned money sitting inside the firm. how do experienced funded traders think about this trade-off?

the format that gets used beats the perfect format that doesn't. sounds obvious but most traders over-design their journaling system for insights they want to have rather than the workflow they'll actually maintain. your switch sounds like the right call.

$100k two-phase evaluation. fee was around $500 which is competitive at that account size. first phase 8% target, second phase 5%. daily loss 5%, max drawdown 10%. standard industry rules, no notable gotchas in the fine print. passed first phase in 18 days, second in 12 days.

the IG sentiment data and oanda open orders book are the two most commonly cited. i've found them most useful for avoiding trades that go with the crowd when the crowd is extremely skewed. if i'm considering a eurusd long and 75% of retail clients are already long, that's a filter that makes me more cautious regardless of my setup quality.

most prop firms are designed for intraday/scalping strategies. their rules (daily loss limits, weekend position restrictions, max position sizing relative to account) tend to disadvantage swing traders who hold positions days or weeks.

i hold positions average 5-15 days. need a firm where this works without constant rule violations. anyone running swing strategies on prop firm capital currently and which firm is friendliest?

this. a focused optimization over a few meaningful parameters runs fine on your own cores overnight. if you need hundreds of cloud agents, your parameter space is probably too big, which is a design smell, not a hardware problem. narrow the search first.

you tell them apart with a big enough sample and by checking whether you followed the rules. a strategy that loses over fifty-plus correctly executed trades may genuinely lack edge. a strategy that lost over six trades, or that you didnt actually follow, tells you nothing. real failure shows up as negative expectancy across a proper sample of on-plan trades. anything less is just variance or your execution, not the strategy. thats why the sample size and the on-plan flag matter so much.

the fixed-sample commitment is the cure. a few losses in a row feels like proof the system is broken, but any positive-expectancy strategy has those stretches regularly. you cant evaluate anything on a handful of trades. by switching after every losing patch youve guaranteed you only ever experience the losing parts of many strategies and the winning parts of none.

partially fair but ig's research has often been quite good in my experience. their FX positioning surveys (showing retail sentiment) are useful as a contrarian indicator. not all broker content is marketing fluff.

signed up with alpha capital in june 2025, passed their evaluation in august, been trading their funded account since. wanted to share an honest 6-month review since theres a lot of mixed info online.

the good:

• rules are clearer than ftmo, less 'gotcha' clauses
• payouts (twice now, 80/20 split) hit my bank in 3 business days each time
• their dashboard is actually useful, not just marketing fluff

the bad:

• their platform options are limited, basically mt5 only
• support is slow when stuff goes wrong (rare but happened twice)
• the evaluation phase has a max drawdown that feels artificially tight

questions welcome.